3
$\begingroup$

I recently discovered that we have a tag.

I propose that we get rid of it.

Reason 1: I don't think it makes sense to have creature specific tags. If we have one such specific tag, then there would be reason to have other specific tags such as Naga, Clownfish, Griffon, and Gargoyle.

Reason 2: Whenever I think about whether very specific tags should exist, I ask myself the question "What does it mean to be an expert in [insert tag here]". It doesn't make much sense to say "I'm an expert in Centaurs", since they don't really exist and are mostly speculative.

Reason 3: This tag doesn't really add anything useful. If you're working on creating centaurs, you could simply tag with and/or .

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It has 12 questions tagged, all about centaurs. I would vote for keeping it in. Will think about longer reasoning than this comment and post it as answer $\endgroup$ – Pavel Janicek Jun 19 '16 at 13:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And yet we have a tag for both zombies and merfolk, both of which are not needed by the same logic. $\endgroup$ – TrEs-2b Jun 19 '16 at 15:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PavelJanicek All of those were tagged such by TrEs-2b in the few hours before Aify posted this meta question. $\endgroup$ – a CVn Jun 19 '16 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ @PavelJanicek at the time of posting, it had 4 tags. $\endgroup$ – Aify Jun 19 '16 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Aify I see. I did not know this at time of writing my answer. Anyway, I also agree what Michel did say in his answer $\endgroup$ – Pavel Janicek Jun 20 '16 at 6:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is there a problem that the tag is causing, or is it just that it's "clutter"? $\endgroup$ – nitsua60 Jun 21 '16 at 3:26
6
$\begingroup$

I'm somewhat divided on this one, but I'm leaning toward that yes, it's a useful tag.

First off, I do think it would have been better to bring it up on Meta before editing a relatively large number of questions, bumping them to the top of the front page. That goes in general, not just about . Yes, this might have been brought up in chat, but far from everyone hangs out in chat; by bringing the matter up on Meta and gathering at least some community consensus, there could have been broader community support and ultimately understanding of what was going on. We also wouldn't be having this discussion.

Second, tags should be used for categorizing questions. You say that "It doesn't make much sense to say "I'm an expert in Centaurs", since they don't really exist and are mostly speculative.", but really, that applies to pretty much everything we do here on Worldbuilding. I doubt there are all that many people who are actually experts in or or or or or or or ... Well, you see what I mean. We have swaths of well established tags about things that simply do not exist in real life or which in real life are highly speculative.

Centaurs are a specific type of mythological creature, and having a more specific way of categorizing questions about them than the generic does make some sense. We have a reasonable number of questions about centaurs (21 non-deleted questions as of now that contain the word centaur), and 15 of those have been tagged , which seems like it exceeds a reasonable threshold for when a specific tag can be useful. It's not really that much fewer than, say, (20 questions thus tagged); let alone the (more dubious, in my opinion) (4 questions).

And of course, if we should have it, it should follow the naming convention of other tags. There's plural , , , , , , , ... so why should be the odd one out? (That, however, can be fixed in a few moments by a diamond moderator, and particularly does not warrant re-bumping all those questions.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In your own [question][meta.worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/216/… you suggest that bringing up tag creation is not needed. $\endgroup$ – TrEs-2b Jun 20 '16 at 1:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TrEs-2b The biggest issue I have with what you did was that you've created a tag and then gone and tagged it on a bunch of old questions, which pushes them up to the front page and pushes down all the actual new questions. $\endgroup$ – Aify Jun 20 '16 at 7:15
  • $\begingroup$ Okay I can understand that, I just think that it is a popular enough subject to warrant a tag. I didn't even think about that $\endgroup$ – TrEs-2b Jun 20 '16 at 7:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TrEs-2b What Aify said. Also, the meta question you linked was early during the private beta period, when practically everyone was asking on Meta whether we should have tags for this, that and everything in between, and the answer was almost always some variation of "add it and we'll see if it takes off". That's the purpose of the beta period. $\endgroup$ – a CVn Jun 20 '16 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling good point $\endgroup$ – TrEs-2b Jun 20 '16 at 7:40
4
$\begingroup$

Yes, we do

Tags serve for better orientation on the site. So if one gets interested in specific topic, the tags should provide help for user to navigate on the site

Arguments against Reason 1: Yes, I agree that is creature specific tag. But we have for example or tags which could be also covered by more generic tags. And they both contain about same or less amount of questions tagged likewise.

Argument against Reason 2: Yes, I know you are talking about being able to get a badge in specific tag, but tagging something via specific tag should not know "I am expert in this" but rather "I want users to know there is more of this"

Argument against Reason 3: It adds value: It helps user to avoid duplicate questions. I might have idea about centaurs and want to ask about how might centaur eat enough caalories. Thanks to tag, I can reaalize faster, that such question already exists

Ultimate argument: There are tags for other mythical creatures

I am going to rephrase what TrEs-2b said in chat:

There is tag for and for which are mythical creatures. While it does not make sense to make a tag for all mythical creatures, it does make sense to create a tag for these mythical creatures where a high number of users find interest in them

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @tres-2b thanks for the edit. I am now only from mobile so was going to do it tomorrow $\endgroup$ – Pavel Janicek Jun 19 '16 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ Uh.. reason 2 isn't anything about badges, btw. I have no idea what you mean by that. And it's just as easy to search for the word "centaur" to find questions, searching for the questions tagged centaur isn't really any better, especially since there may be mistags or left out tags. $\endgroup$ – Aify Jun 19 '16 at 20:35
0
$\begingroup$

Pavel Janicek already made a great answer (of which I completely agree) but I thought I should add my thoughts for the subject.

I do understand that my opinion is a bit bias, as I am they one who created the tag, so I will look at both sides of the argument.

Arguments for

  • like Pavel pointed out, it helps prevent duplicate questions
  • It makes it easier to find details about centaurs
  • Not including it is a double standard. Why are tags like or okay, but centaurs are not?

Arguments against

  • Currently if the tag continues to exist, there will only be 13 or so questions in it. As opposed to the and tags which each have around 40 questions.
  • It's a slippery slope. If this tag can exist then it could lead to dozens of smaller tags, each about a specific creature.
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "It makes it easier to find details about centaurs" Yes, because searching for questions tagged [centaur] is so much easier than searching for questions containing centaur... or is it? $\endgroup$ – a CVn Jun 19 '16 at 18:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling No, a tag is easier. A tag shows all questions without a search. Done. Question answered. $\endgroup$ – TrEs-2b Jun 20 '16 at 1:27
0
$\begingroup$

We have chimera-folk (I added) for misc. and those without enough questions to be worth its own tag. As was discussed previously.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .